"What shall we give him [the infant being weaned] to drink? Sometimes water, sometimes wine rather watered down, by means of a glass vessel made into the shape of a teat and bored through, which country folks call 'ubuppa' or 'titina'."

I have not found a satisfactory published etymology of _ubuppa_. The fact that Mustio (or Muscio, or Moschio) was from North Africa does not mean that the word originated there. M.'s task was to make Soranus's medical works accessible to women who spoke Latin but could not read Greek. His translation was intended to be read aloud to illiterate women also. For the most part, his vocabulary is basic Latin, and he explains any necessary technical terms in simple language. It is unlikely that he would use an obscure regionalism in a translation intended for use throughout the Latin world. Therefore, I will attempt to explain _ubuppa_ as a native Latin word.

J. Pokorny (IEW 1103) recognized a root *ub- 'drängen, (nieder)drücken'(?) forming verbs in Indo-Iranian and Baltic. This looks like the zero-grade of an otherwise unattested PIE *web- 'to press, squeeze' vel sim. In connection with a feeding bottle, *ub- could be the prevocalic combining form of a thematic noun *ubó- 'pressure, squeezing'. If so, _ubuppa_ presumably referred to a squeeze-bottle, as opposed to _titina_, a rigid bottle. If the two terms were entirely synonymous, we would expect M. to use _vel_ and not _aut_, indicating an immaterial choice of words. Naturally the squeezable part of an ubuppa could not be made of glass.

In my post "Kluge's Law in Italic?" (message #68402, 23 Jan 2012; laryngeal notation corrected #68416, 25 Jan), I suggested that such Latin words as _lippus_, _siccus_, _glittus_, and _mittere_ owe their geminated tenues to the operation of Kluge's assimilation. So far I have found no good reason to think otherwise. Thus, if the PIE root *h2/3webH- (IEW 1114-5 *webH- 'weben, flechten, knüpfen') formed a noun *h2/3ubH-néh2 'woven vessel', this would become Proto-Italic *uppa:, and this term could have distinguished a flexible vessel from a rigid one. Then *ubuppa: 'squeezable vessel' could have become specialized as 'squeezable feeding bottle'. The object itself would seldom have found its way out of the realm of nursing mothers and the obstetrices who attended to them, and so the word could easily have been overlooked by the male Latin grammarians of the classical period.

DGK

shivkhokra

Mahabharat and other Sanskrit texts have अभ्युद्धृ (Abhyudh) which means lift or draw out water. Colloquially, for example in Modern Indo

Message 2 of 4
, Aug 22, 2013

Mahabharat and other Sanskrit texts have अभ्युद्धृ (Abhyudh) which means lift or draw out water.

Colloquially, for example in Modern Indo Aryan Rajasthani language, "ubho" is used to mean lift.

Shivraj

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "dgkilday57" <dgkilday57@...> wrote:
>
>
> Late Latin _ubuppa_ 'feeding bottle' is attested once in Mustio's translation of Soranus's Gynaecia (V. Rose, Sorani Gynaeciorum vetus translatio latina, Lipsiae 1882, p. 43):
>
> "131. Quid ei bibere dabimus? Aliquando aquam aliquando vinum aquatius per vasculum vitreum ad similitudinem papillae formatum et pertusum, quod rustici ubuppam appellant aut titinam."
>
> "What shall we give him [the infant being weaned] to drink? Sometimes water, sometimes wine rather watered down, by means of a glass vessel made into the shape of a teat and bored through, which country folks call 'ubuppa' or 'titina'."
>
> I have not found a satisfactory published etymology of _ubuppa_. The fact that Mustio (or Muscio, or Moschio) was from North Africa does not mean that the word originated there. M.'s task was to make Soranus's medical works accessible to women who spoke Latin but could not read Greek. His translation was intended to be read aloud to illiterate women also. For the most part, his vocabulary is basic Latin, and he explains any necessary technical terms in simple language. It is unlikely that he would use an obscure regionalism in a translation intended for use throughout the Latin world. Therefore, I will attempt to explain _ubuppa_ as a native Latin word.
>
> J. Pokorny (IEW 1103) recognized a root *ub- 'drängen, (nieder)drücken'(?) forming verbs in Indo-Iranian and Baltic. This looks like the zero-grade of an otherwise unattested PIE *web- 'to press, squeeze' vel sim. In connection with a feeding bottle, *ub- could be the prevocalic combining form of a thematic noun *ubó- 'pressure, squeezing'. If so, _ubuppa_ presumably referred to a squeeze-bottle, as opposed to _titina_, a rigid bottle. If the two terms were entirely synonymous, we would expect M. to use _vel_ and not _aut_, indicating an immaterial choice of words. Naturally the squeezable part of an ubuppa could not be made of glass.
>
> In my post "Kluge's Law in Italic?" (message #68402, 23 Jan 2012; laryngeal notation corrected #68416, 25 Jan), I suggested that such Latin words as _lippus_, _siccus_, _glittus_, and _mittere_ owe their geminated tenues to the operation of Kluge's assimilation. So far I have found no good reason to think otherwise. Thus, if the PIE root *h2/3webH- (IEW 1114-5 *webH- 'weben, flechten, knüpfen') formed a noun *h2/3ubH-néh2 'woven vessel', this would become Proto-Italic *uppa:, and this term could have distinguished a flexible vessel from a rigid one. Then *ubuppa: 'squeezable vessel' could have become specialized as 'squeezable feeding bottle'. The object itself would seldom have found its way out of the realm of nursing mothers and the obstetrices who attended to them, and so the word could easily have been overlooked by the male Latin grammarians of the classical period.
>
> DGK
>

"What shall we give him [the infant being weaned] to drink? Sometimes water, sometimes wine rather watered down, by means of a glass vessel made into the shape of a teat and bored through, which country folks call 'ubuppa' or 'titina'."

I have not found a satisfactory published etymology of _ubuppa_. The fact that Mustio (or Muscio, or Moschio) was from North Africa does not mean that the word originated there. M.'s task was to make Soranus's medical works accessible to women who spoke Latin but could not read Greek. His translation was intended to be read aloud to illiterate women also. For the most part, his vocabulary is basic Latin, and he explains any necessary technical terms in simple language. It is unlikely that he would use an obscure regionalism in a translation intended for use throughout the Latin world. Therefore, I will attempt to explain _ubuppa_ as a native Latin word.

J. Pokorny (IEW 1103) recognized a root *ub- 'drängen, (nieder)drücken'(?) forming verbs in Indo-Iranian and Baltic. This looks like the zero-grade of an otherwise unattested PIE *web- 'to press, squeeze' vel sim. In connection with a feeding bottle, *ub- could be the prevocalic combining form of a thematic noun *ubó- 'pressure, squeezing'. If so, _ubuppa_ presumably referred to a squeeze-bottle, as opposed to _titina_, a rigid bottle. If the two terms were entirely synonymous, we would expect M. to use _vel_ and not _aut_, indicating an immaterial choice of words. Naturally the squeezable part of an ubuppa could not be made of glass.

In my post "Kluge's Law in Italic?" (message #68402, 23 Jan 2012; laryngeal notation corrected #68416, 25 Jan), I suggested that such Latin words as _lippus_, _siccus_, _glittus_, and _mittere_ owe their geminated tenues to the operation of Kluge's assimilation. So far I have found no good reason to think otherwise. Thus, if the PIE root *h2/3webH- (IEW 1114-5 *webH- 'weben, flechten, knüpfen') formed a noun *h2/3ubH-néh2 'woven vessel', this would become Proto-Italic *uppa:, and this term could have distinguished a flexible vessel from a rigid one. Then *ubuppa: 'squeezable vessel' could have become specialized as 'squeezable feeding bottle'. The object itself would seldom have found its way out of the realm of nursing mothers and the obstetrices who attended to them, and so the word could easily have been overlooked by the male Latin grammarians of the classical period.

*****

An alternative
explanation of the first element which does not depend on the obscure
zero-grade PIE *ub- has suggested itself.Rather than native Latin, _ubuppa_ may be of P-Italic origin, like such
words as _bo:s_, _lupus_, _scro:fa_, and _forfex_, which have non-Q-Italic
consonantism.If so, the first element
could be the P-Italic reflex of *ugW(o)-, from the zero-grade of PIE *wegW-
'wet' (IEW 1118).The Proto-Italic
compound *ugWuppa: would then signify 'woven vessel for liquids', 'wet bag', or
the like.Technologically, this is
preferable to 'squeezable bottle', since it is unlikely that such things could
have been produced before rubber was known.But a bag woven around a dead animal's removed stomach, or a woven skin bag, would have
been technically feasible without rubber.

Beside *ugW-, Pokorny
allowed a long zero-grade *u:gW- in order to accommodate Latin _u:vidus_ and the
like.This probably acquired u:- from
its more common synonym _u:midus_, not a variant zero-grade.That _u:midus_ represents earlier
*ugW-sm-ido- was accepted by Ernout-Meillet, Walde-Hofmann, and Watkins, but
doubted by Weiss (cited by de Vaan, EDL s.v. _u:meo:_), who proposed a different
root.This controversy about _u:midus_
(and indirectly about _u:vidus_) has no bearing on _ubuppa_, however.It, or its protoform *ugWuppa:, would have
been formed long before there was any analogical pressure to lengthen the
root-vowel in _u:vidus_.

"What shall we give him [the infant being weaned] to drink? Sometimes water, sometimes wine rather watered down, by means of a glass vessel made into the shape of a teat and bored through, which country folks call 'ubuppa' or 'titina'."

I have not found a satisfactory published etymology of _ubuppa_. The fact that Mustio (or Muscio, or Moschio) was from North Africa does not mean that the word originated there. M.'s task was to make Soranus's medical works accessible to women who spoke Latin but could not read Greek. His translation was intended to be read aloud to illiterate women also. For the most part, his vocabulary is basic Latin, and he explains any necessary technical terms in simple language. It is unlikely that he would use an obscure regionalism in a translation intended for use throughout the Latin world. Therefore, I will attempt to explain _ubuppa_ as a native Latin word.

J. Pokorny (IEW 1103) recognized a root *ub- 'drängen, (nieder)drücken'(?) forming verbs in Indo-Iranian and Baltic. This looks like the zero-grade of an otherwise unattested PIE *web- 'to press, squeeze' vel sim. In connection with a feeding bottle, *ub- could be the prevocalic combining form of a thematic noun *ubó- 'pressure, squeezing'. If so, _ubuppa_ presumably referred to a squeeze-bottle, as opposed to _titina_, a rigid bottle. If the two terms were entirely synonymous, we would expect M. to use _vel_ and not _aut_, indicating an immaterial choice of words. Naturally the squeezable part of an ubuppa could not be made of glass.

In my post "Kluge's Law in Italic?" (message #68402, 23 Jan 2012; laryngeal notation corrected #68416, 25 Jan), I suggested that such Latin words as _lippus_, _siccus_, _glittus_, and _mittere_ owe their geminated tenues to the operation of Kluge's assimilation. So far I have found no good reason to think otherwise. Thus, if the PIE root *h2/3webH- (IEW 1114-5 *webH- 'weben, flechten, knüpfen') formed a noun *h2/3ubH-néh2 'woven vessel', this would become Proto-Italic *uppa:, and this term could have distinguished a flexible vessel from a rigid one. Then *ubuppa: 'squeezable vessel' could have become specialized as 'squeezable feeding bottle'. The object itself would seldom have found its way out of the realm of nursing mothers and the obstetrices who attended to them, and so the word could easily have been overlooked by the male Latin grammarians of the classical period.

*****

An alternative
explanation of the first element which does not depend on the obscure
zero-grade PIE *ub- has suggested itself.Rather than native Latin, _ubuppa_ may be of P-Italic origin, like such
words as _bo:s_, _lupus_, _scro:fa_, and _forfex_, which have non-Q-Italic
consonantism.If so, the first element
could be the P-Italic reflex of *ugW(o)-, from the zero-grade of PIE *wegW-
'wet' (IEW 1118).The Proto-Italic
compound *ugWuppa: would then signify 'woven vessel for liquids', 'wet bag', or
the like.Technologically, this is
preferable to 'squeezable bottle', since it is unlikely that such things could
have been produced before rubber was known.But a bag woven around a dead animal's removed stomach, or a woven skin bag, would have
been technically feasible without rubber.

Beside *ugW-, Pokorny
allowed a long zero-grade *u:gW- in order to accommodate Latin _u:vidus_ and the
like.This probably acquired u:- from
its more common synonym _u:midus_, not a variant zero-grade.That _u:midus_ represents earlier
*ugW-sm-ido- was accepted by Ernout-Meillet, Walde-Hofmann, and Watkins, but
doubted by Weiss (cited by de Vaan, EDL s.v. _u:meo:_), who proposed a different
root.This controversy about _u:midus_
(and indirectly about _u:vidus_) has no bearing on _ubuppa_, however.It, or its protoform *ugWuppa:, would have
been formed long before there was any analogical pressure to lengthen the
root-vowel in _u:vidus_.

*****

In hindsight, neither a
bag woven around a stomach nor a bag woven of skins is likely to have given its
name to _ubuppa_, which was after all rigid, a _vasculum vitreum_.A better explanation is that bags woven from
flexible twigs or whatever served as frameworks for earthen vessels, which upon
firing became suitable for holding liquids.A Proto-Italic *uppa: 'woven container' thus became an *ugWuppa:
'(woven) vessel for liquids', P-Italic *ubuppa:, borrowed into Latin as
_ubuppa_.

Vannetais Breton _offen_
f. 'stone trough' reflects Proto-Celtic *uppa: (J. Loth, Rev. Celt. 43:410,
cited by Walde-Hofmann, LEW s.v. _aulla_).In my view this is identical to the Proto-Italic word which I
postulated, since I regard Kluge's Law (= Stokes' Law in Celtic) as operating
in Old Western IE, the common ancestor of Germanic, Celtic, Italic, Venetic,
and Ligurian.The Celtic
sense-development of *uppa: was presumably 'woven container' > '(clay-covered
woven) container for liquids' > 'trough'.

Meyer-Lübke took Old
French _enveloper_, Italian _inviluppare_ 'to wrap up', and related words, as
resulting from contamination of _faluppa_ with Lat. _volvo:_ 'I roll' and its
derivatives (REW 3173.3).The vocalism
however fits *velupp- better than *volupp-, and no contamination is necessary
if Latin borrowed *veluppa from P-Italic (since a native word would require
*voluppa with /l/ pinguis; that -elu- was enunciable is shown by the compound conjunction
_velut_ 'as though').I posit a
Proto-Italic *wel(o)- 'rolling, ball-shaped, round' prefixed in *weluppa:
'round woven object, cocoon, chrysalis'.In this scenario, Vulgar Latin had *inveluppa:re (*invil-) 'to enclose
by weaving, enclose as with a cocoon, envelop' and *de:veluppa:re, *exveluppa:re
'to emerge as from a cocoon, develop, sviluppare'.Italian _viluppo_ 'tangle, ravel', which
M.-L. places first as the most primitive form, is in my view a back-formation
from one of the verbs.

Although no phonetic
evidence suggests itself, I suspect that _faluppa_, like _ubuppa_ and *veluppa,
was a P-Italic loanword to Latin.The
classical language had very few compounds like _angiportum_ 'narrow street',
already an archaism.Native speakers
preferred separate words to compounds.

DGK

Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.